My Soul to Take

Despite numerous warnings to avoid this film, I shelled out my money, including the ridiculous $3 extra for 3D glasses, figuring, it's Wes Craven, how bad can it be? Well, the answer is, extremely, horribly, atrociously bad. MSTT made Shocker look like Citizen Kane. I've seen better efforts at the After Dark Horrorfests and coming from The Asylum on SyFy.

MSTT had a script and dialog of the level of some fresh-out-of-some-two-bit-drama-school reject, not of a nearly 40-year veteran of filmmaking. Half the dialog made no sense whatsoever, and the emotions of the actors was usually misplaced.

While the story had promise, the execution failed completely. At first, the action seemed forced to get to the central elements Craven was looking for, then the resolution bogged down in complete incoherence.

Craven can't blame some one else's script or studio insistence on cuts, 'cause this atrocity was all his. If this is the best he can do, he should retire. He's proved he has nothing left to add to horror.

And if my negative comments still don't dissuade you from seeing this atrocity, make sure you at least seek out 2D instead of the extra money for 3D, because...

THERE WAS NO Discernible 3D IN THE FILM WHATSOEVER!!!! Scenes which should have popped out of the screen, such as the ambulance crash, DIDN'T! It's quite obvious the studio realized what a piece of crap MSTT was and how it would plummet in ticket sales once work of mouth got out, so they did post-filming 3D conversion to bilk the poor suckers who went to see it opening weekend out of a few dollars more.

The only reason I didn't rate this a 1 is because, sadly, I have seen worse. But this one should be avoided at all costs.

2/10

My Soul to Take (2010)

** (out of 4)

Wes Craven's return to the horror genre hits with a major thud and turns out to be his most disappointing film since VAMPIRE IN BROOKLYN. The story is a pretty interesting one as a serial killer murders his pregnant wife as well as six other people but after being shot and stabbed he's involved in an ambulance crash. His body is never discovered but it's pretty clear he's probably dead so the community moves on. Sixteen years later the seven kids who were born on the day he died are know dropping like flies so is it a copycat killer, the dead man's son, the killer himself or perhaps just his ghost? There are many, many good ideas floating around this film but in the end it's just way too uneven, confusing and at times laughable to really work. I'll start with the screenplay that has a few interesting ideas including the fact that souls can jump from one body to the next. This is an interesting idea and they do a few nice things with it but it really seems like this psychological idea was nixed at some level and some executive cut in saying this was a horror film and needed more murders. The movie, for the most part, deals with the fears of these seven kids and then we have more psychological stuff about them being haunted and cursed. Then, out of no where, the film seems to switch on a dime to turn into some crazy slasher where the victims are being torn apart. The psychological stuff begins to wear thin as the story grows more and more out of whack and while the screenplay gets a lot of the blame you can also point the finger at Craven. The first sequence on the bridge actually contains some of that Craven magic where your pulse goes from zero to sixty in a matter of seconds and this expands to an earlier scene where you just know the killer is going to come back to life and although you're expecting it when it does finally happen it makes for a good jump. The problem is that Craven really doesn't handle the psychological stuff too well and this is where the movie really loses its way and in the end crashes and burns. I'd be willing to bet that we're going to get a couple alternate endings when we finally get a DVD release because the ending has so much going on you can't help but feel things could have ended in a dozen different ways. One of the worst sequences in the film is perhaps the most bizarre and it's a big chase sequence in the woods. We start off with a possible sexual assault before things changing up and we're seeing the killer chase two different victims. This scene really doesn't make too much sense and in many ways what starts it seems out of place but not a single frame of this long sequence has any suspense to it, which is shocking since we're talking about a Wes Craven film. The performances are about on par for this type of movie so no complaints there. MY SOUL TO TAKE seems to have a lot of interesting ideas floating around but the ideas never really come together and in the end you can't help but feel disappointed. This isn't a horrible movie but at the same time you expect a lot more when Wes Craven is involved.

You pretty much have to give this a second review in terms of the 3-D. I must admit that I didn't want to watch a Craven film in 3-D but that's all that was playing around me. Those expecting stuff to jump off the screen are going to be disappointed and those who put down $12 or more dollars (like I did) for the 3-D are going to be extremely mad because there isn't any 3-D. Well, there are two small things that jump out at you in the entire movie and the rest of the thing is simply flat. In fact, during the movie you can take your glasses off and it's a 2-D print being shown. There was one other person in the theater with me and he actually watched the movie without the glasses on. I'm not sure how the studio is promoting this thing but there's no question this wasn't shot for 3-D but instead converted to it. This isn't a bad thing but to charge extra money for just a couple quick scenes is a major rip off so for this reason alone I'd recommend people to save their money and wait for DVD or try and catch a 2-D screening.

This is a pretty great movie. It keeps you guessing the entire time, and Wes always keeps things nicely suspenseful. Characters are well built, and the urban legend aspect is fun, and it does keep you wondering what exactly is going on. The cast is young and cute, and they all do a good job, although there are some seemingly unmovitaved moments that are a little disappointing. The script gets a touch weak at times but nothing that pulls you out of the viewing experience. Consider this a fantastic rainy day/date movie- perfect for snuggling up with someone, but something you can easily walk away from without breaking your heart either. Don't expect an earth shattering film, but expect to have a good time!

To fans of Western horror, the name Wes Craven is something of a legend. This is the guy who created one of the most iconic characters in horror- Freddy Krueger- in the "Nightmare in Elm Street" series. This is the guy who had the smarts to turn the genre on its head and give it a new breath of fresh air in the "Scream" trilogy, and come next year, quadrology. This is the guy whose horror movies- "The Hills Have Eyes", "The Last House on the Left" and of course the "Nightmare" series- are being remade by a new breed of filmmakers eager to be the next him.

Naturally then, the fact that "My Soul to Take" is Wes Craven's first film in five years (since 2005's "Red Eye") and first that the horror- meister has written and directed in fifteen years comes with certain expectations. Indeed, all the usual elements of a classic Wes Craven horror are present- a small town with hidden secrets from the past; a legend that is the stuff of campfire stories; and hipper-than-thou teen- speak- but unfortunately this is far from any classic. In fact, it probably qualifies as one of Wes Craven's career worst, if not the worst.

The opening in itself is baffling. A tightly condensed prologue is meant to set up the legend of the Riverton Ripper, a family man with multiple personality disorder including a particularly murderous one that has turned him into the town serial killer. He tries to kill his pregnant wife, the police rush in and shoot him a couple of times, he wakes rather miraculously to return the favour, the police fire some more, then the ambulance crashes on the way to the hospital and he disappears. Meanwhile on that very night, seven babies are born at the hospital.

The catch here is this- each one of his seven souls has taken over one of the babies, so one of them will eventually turn into a murderer. It's best you remember this, since the frenzied and convoluted manner Wes Craven tells the story makes it unnecessarily confusing. Fast-forward sixteen years later, when the Ripper has become the stuff of local legend, and a traditional prank played on one of them, Bug (Max Thierot), goes awry and apparently brings back the Ripper.

Unfolding entirely over the course of one day, Craven spends the first half of the film setting up his seven characters- the hot jock (Nick Lashaway), the sweet hottie (Paulina Olszynski), the religious chick (Zena Grey), the token Asian (Jeremy Chu), the African American blind boy (Denzel Whitaker), and Max's best friend Alex (John Magaro)- before the start of the blodletting. Sadly, none of the characters are any more than cinematic stereotypes, so whichever order they eventually meet their death doesn't really matter to the audience. The same goes for Craven's clumsy writing, his attempts at witty exchanges falling awfully flat.

By the time the Ripper comes calling, it's pretty much a case of 'too little too late'. Aside from not shying away from the gore, Craven botches any buildup to the climax by piling on the deaths too swiftly. Before any of the characters understand what is going on, they have already been off-ed or are in the process of getting off-ed. Even the extended climax done the Craven way (i.e. several characters trapped in the house with a killer in their midst a la "Scream") feels derivative and unconvincing.

The only consolation therefore is that by the end of the movie, you won't get a headache from watching the movie in 3D, as folks in the US would have (the movie is only available in 2D here). But the real horror is that Wes Craven may have finally, after an illustrious career stretching almost 40 years, lost his horror mojo. "My Soul to Take" is a major disappointment from Craven- let's just hope he still remembers how to make an audience "Scream" next year.

Wes Craven has had a really spotty career, full of ups and downs. I was a bit surprised by MSTT, because it seemed to be far more derivative and unimaginative than I was expecting. This certainly isn't a bad movie, but it was disappointing, especially for Wes Craven. If it had been some unknown director's debut, I'd probably be more forgiving. However, I expect better from Wes Craven, even after sitting through Deadly Friend and Shocker. Like Deadly Friend and Shocker, there were aspects of this movie that I did like, but not enough that I'd give it a good rating. I think that this movie was made for a younger, less jaded demographic (ie, teenagers). For adults, it's just going to seem a bit tired, clichéd, and a retread of several of his older movies (most especially Scream). I was never a huge fan of Scream in the first place, but it was better than this. I'd say that MSTT is worth a 5/10 for adults, while teenagers may enjoy it more (6/10).